No, it is not guaranteed that socket3 will be ready for a connection. All binds
(and connects) happen asynchronously in the I/O thread. Depending on your
machine performance, it could be ready in 10ms, 100ms or more.
What I recommend doing is putting a loop around your socket2.connect call. If
it fails, sleep shortly and try again (or busy loop). It will eventually
connect.
For example:
while (1) {
rc = socket2.connect("inproc://addr2");
if (rc == 0) break;
}
cr
On Oct 18, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Kah-Chan Low wrote:
> Thanks Chuck and Lourens for your very speedy reply!
>
> I have two threads and to overcome this problem I have set-up the code like
> this:
> Thread A is guaranteed to execute the relevant parts of the code first even
> before Thread B gets started.
>
> Thread A
> ----------
> .
> .
> socket1.bind("inproc://addr1");
> socket1.blockingrecv();
> socket2.connect("inproc://addr2");
> .
> .
>
> Thread B
> ----------
> .
> .
> .
> socket3.bind("inproc://addr2");
> socket4.connect("inproc://addr1");
> socket.send(msg);
> .
> .
> .
>
> Is this guaranteed to work?
> My question is this: after socket3.bind() is done and right before
> socket4.connect() is executed, is socket3 guaranteed to be ready for
> connection?
>
> Thanks!
> KC
>
> From: Chuck Remes <[email protected]>
> To: Kah-Chan Low <[email protected]>; ZeroMQ development list
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] inproc: need to bind to an address before connect?
>
> It's a long-standing bug that is very difficult to fix. The work around is to
> do as you discovered which is *always bind first* and then connect when using
> inproc transport.
>
> For details as to why this is hard, try searching the mailing list archive.
> The answer would have been given by Martin Sustrik. You can also check the
> bug database for a write-up on this.
>
> cr
>
> On Oct 18, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Kah-Chan Low wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> When I do this I will get a "connection refused" error:
>>
>> socket1.connect("inproc://abc");
>> socket2.bind("inproc://abc");
>>
>> When I reverse the order of the statements everything works fine.
>> Both sockets have been created with the same ZMQ context.
>>
>> Is this a feature or a bug?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> KC
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
